March Thoughts

I know I haven't been posting as much as I was, but it isn't from lack of wanting to, more from lack of feeling like I have something important to say that's worth sharing with anyone.  I used to do a livejournal years ago where I posted about all the things that irritated me, or the drama and hopes and dreams and all the minutia of my life, but found that I didn't necessarily want to share all of that with the world.  It was the realization that everything we put out on the net is there forever and is that really what I want out there?

Today, with the internet, everyone can see things NOW.  And they can respond to those things NOW.  There is little to no time from the moment you read or see something to the moment you write something in response to it and hit 'return' on your keyboard.  And there is almost little to no time afterward that someone responds to you.  As wonderful as that is, there is also a lack of editing that goes on.  When you have nothing but a split-second from a thought to your keyboard, there is nothing between you and saying something clever, witty or insightful - of course there is also nothing between you and saying something hurtful, stupid, or insipid.

This is parody!

And those comments are now out there.  Forever.

While out with Mom, I brought up a theory on the simmering anger that seems to be prevalent in Americans or maybe just people in general.  I wonder if perhaps is due to this instant response (usually negative) thing on the internet.  No matter what your thoughts or opinions are, as soon as you put them out there, people are jumping at the chance to not just disagree with you, but insult you - and not just insult you, but call you names in the most vitriolic manner that you think you clearly must have shot their puppy when they were children.

It certainly isn't a conducive environment to a constructive conversation.

I can give you an example and this has nothing to do with any personal opinions of mine or having my trying to be political or anything, this is stated as an example:

This cartoon was posted somewhere as a political cartoon about the difficulty of a same-sex couple adopting a child when they have a loving healthy environment in comparison to a heterosexual couple who might not have a loving healthy environment.  I looked at it, took it in, noted it and moved on from it.  Then I read the comments under it.  It was nothing but anger and snark.  People were talking about the 'gay agenda' and liberals and how tired they were of hearing about homosexuals etc... It got pretty heated with not one person actually having a real intelligent thing to say about it.  Then, someone posted a link to an article in there about a study some group did which proved that children raised in gay households didn't score high on some social test that they do on adopted children to see how well adjusted they are.  Researching more, I learned that many gay couples don't adopt babies, but rather children so they aren't really starting from scratch so to speak, rather they are dealing with children who are already going to have some social issues to adjust to... proving that the study which was saying that gay parents weren't providing good homes, was really very skewed.

Now, I had to tease the information out and go through a lot to try and get a decent 'conversation' and some information about the subject for myself.  Obviously you always want to try and get the facts, but I tried to imagine this situation in a real face to face environment.  Granted, I have no way to prove this would happen, but if that same group that posted to the picture were standing in a room, I can't imagine they'd be as vocally violent as they were online.  Sure, there might be some rude comments, but there would be fear of confrontation face to face.  On top of that, there would probably be more of a conversation where information would be shared.  For example, if a person said, "Well, I saw a study that said same-sex couples don't provide a good home for adopted children.  According to the report, the adopted children scored lower on a socialization test."  Some people might nod their head in agreement or in gaining that information.  But then, another person would say, "Yes, but did that study take into account that many same-sex couples adopt children rather than babies which most heterosexual couples do...  What is the age range in that study...?" etc...  You would get to the meat of a conversation about a subject matter much quicker than online where it is drowned in insults.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be stupid comments or stupidity.  That happens all over and in all circumstances no matter race, religion or creed... There is always a rainbow of stupid.  But when we are face to face, we communicate differently.

To some, I'm not saying anything new.  I'm not intending to.  Like I said, this is a theory on anger.  And I think the internet and this jump to say something has injured our ability to think things through and find truth in what is being said.  We are self-defensive, overly defensive, waiting for the snark, or the rudeness or the hate and we are quick to jump on the other guy who doesn't agree with us.  Its never "Well, I disagree with you." its, "You're an idiot!"

Obviously we all have freedom of speech and no one wants to curb that, but can we not have decent discourse?  Can we not treat each other with respect and thoughtfulness?  Do we all have to agree with each other?  Apparently from what I see on the internet the answers are No, No and Yes.

The other question is: Do we all have to comment every time there is an opportunity to do so?

There are many times I find myself about to comment on something but then stop myself, delete what I am typing and think very specifically, "Do I have to comment on this?" 9 times out of 10, the answer is no (honestly it could be 10 out of 10).  As a whole, we seem to have a need to jump in and start typing something when we see a post or blog, like its our civic duty or something.

I've cut back to just trying to be witty or really having an interesting fact to add.  As far as the rest, I hold back - Not because I don't have opinions - because clearly, I do - but because I don't want to get into an argument or really hear someone disagree with me.  If you post something that states a political party is made up of a bunch of idiots and I disagree with you, I don't know that my saying anything is going to change your thoughts on the matter, so why get into it with you?  It seems a waste of time, isn't constructive, and certainly won't enrich my life or yours.

I also avoid reading comments on articles and other blogs or even videos because usually there is nothing really worthwhile to find there.  Mom mentioned she stopped doing that after looking a site for recipes and seeing the angry commentaries below recipes...  People nastily telling others to keep their recipes for meat to themselves and how it was wrong of people to post things that weren't gluten-free...  No one told you to read these recipes!  Why are you so angry?  Why did you need to post ANYTHING about it?

So again, I wonder if this all has lead to more angry people.  I certainly believe it has lead to the severe party lines in our politics.  Things can only be black and white if the people who don't agree with you are idiots.

But back to my start regarding my blog...  I want to make sure that its interesting, informative or just maybe funny.  Not easy to do all the time or when you find yourself in a stretch of simple day to day activity.  And also because I want to keep readers interested in it.  I don't get much in the way of comments regarding my blog, so I have no idea who, if any, are actually reading it.  I can only hope that as time goes, the number of people will grow and I'll get a following - of course the pressure to be interesting will increase, as will the readers who find the need to say something about what I wrote. 

Anyone out there have opinions on that?  :D